44. VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. vs. CA, ET. AL.

GR No. L-25499 February 18, 1970

FACTS:

An Izuzu First Class passenger bus, driven by Laureano Casim, owned and
operated by the petitioner, Villa Rey Transit, Inc., while on its way to Manila from Lingayen,
Pangasinan, hit the rear side of a bullcart filled with hay. As a result of which, one of its
paying passenger, Policronio Quintos, Jr., was hit on his left eye of the protruding end of the
bamboo pole which penetrated through the glass windshield of the bus. Quintos died due to
traumatic shock caused by cerebral injuries.

The private respondents, Trinidad, Prima and Julita Quintos, sisters and only
surviving heirs of the deceased filed an action to recover damages against Villa Rey Transit,
Inc. for breach of contract of carriage.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents and ordered the
petitioner to pay the amount of P63,750 as damages.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE:

W/N the amount for damages awarded is proper?

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA with modification reducing the
indemnity to be paid, and ordering the petitioner to pay the private respondents the sum of
P49,561.28, as follows:

P33,333.33 indemnity of loss of earning capacity

P12,000 pursuant to Articles 104 and 107 of the RPC in relation to Article 2206 of
the Civil Code
P1,727.95 actual expenses for medical and burial of the deceased
P2,500 attorneys fees.
 Life expectancy is, not only relevant, but, also, an important element in fixing the
amount recoverable by private respondents herein. Although it is not the sole element
determinative of said amount, no cogent reason has been given to warrant its disregard and
the adoption.

With respect to the rate at which the damages shall be computed, petitioner impugns
the decision appealed from upon the ground that the damages awarded therein will have to
be paid now, whereas most of those sought to be indemnified will be suffered years later.
The Court explained that although payment of the award in the case at bar will have to take
place upon the finality of the decision therein, the liability of petitioner herein had been fixed
at the rate only of P2,184.00 a year, which is the annual salary of Policronio Quintos, Jr. at
the time of his death, as a young "training assistant" in the Bacnotan Cement Industries, Inc.
In other words, unlike the Alcantara case, on which petitioner relies, the lower courts did not
consider, in the present case, Policronio's potentiality and capacity to increase his future
income. Indeed, upon the conclusion of his training period, he was supposed to have a
better job and be promoted from time to time, and, hence, to earn more, if not
considering the growing importance of trade, commerce and industry and the concomitant
rise in the income level of officers and employees therein much more.

The Court is mainly concerned with the determination of the losses or damages
sustained by the private respondents, as dependents and intestate heirs of the deceased,
and that said damages consist, not of the full amount of his earnings, but of the support,
they received or would have received from him had he not died in consequence of the
negligence of petitioner's agent. In fixing the amount of that support, the Court must reckon
with the "necessary expenses of his own living", which should be deducted from his
earnings. Thus, it has been consistently held that earning capacity, as an element of
damages to one's estate for his death by wrongful act is necessarily his net earning capacity
or his capacity to acquire money, "less the necessary expense for his own living . Stated
otherwise, the amount recoverable is not loss of the entire earning, but rather the loss of
that portion of the earnings which the beneficiary would have received. In other words, only
net earnings, not gross earning, are to be considered that is, the total of the
earnings less expenses necessary in the creation of such earnings or income and less living
and other incidental expenses.

It is then fair and reasonable to fix the deductible living and other expenses of the
deceased at the sum of P1,184.00 a year, or about P100.00 a month, and that,
consequently, the loss sustained by his sisters may be roughly estimated at P1,000.00 a
year or P33,333.33 for the 33-1/3 years of his life expectancy.

45. G.R. No. 186312 June 29, 2010

SPOUSES DANTE CRUZ and LEONORA CRUZ vs. SUN HOLIDAYS, INC.

Facts: Spouses Dante and Leonora Cruz (petitioners) lodged a Complaint on January 25,
2001 against Sun Holidays, Inc. (respondent) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig
City for damages arising from the death of their son Ruelito C. Cruz (Ruelito) who perished
with his wife on September 11, 2000 on board the boat M/B Coco Beach III that capsized en
route to Batangas from Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro.
Sun Holidays contended that M/B Coco Beach III capsized due to the occurrence of
squalls which can be produced by bad weather that was not forecasted by PAGASA and
respondent insisted that occurrence of squalls was a fortuitous event.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is liable to pay for damages on their allegation of an
occurrence of fortuitous event.

Held:

Dr. Frisco Nilo, supervising weather specialist of PAGASA, testified, that they issued 24-
hour public weather forecasts and tropical cyclone warnings for shipping on September 10
and 11, 2000 advising of tropical depressions in Northern Luzon which would also affect the
province of Mindoro and squalls are to be expected under such weather condition. Because
there was such a warning they should have not set sail.

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of petitioners ordering respondent to pay

petitioners the following: (1) P50,000 as indemnity for the death of Ruelito Cruz; (2)
P8,316,000 as indemnity for Ruelitos loss of earning capacity; (3) P100,000 as moral
damages; (4) P100,000 as exemplary damages; (5) 10% of the total amount adjudged
against respondent as attorneys fees; and (6) the costs of suit.

The total amount adjudged against respondent shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per
annum computed from the finality of this decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

46. G.R. No. L-63135 June 24, 1983

GLORIA DARROCHA DE CALISTON vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

AND GERONIMO DALMACIO

Facts:
Geronimo Dalmacio while driving a passenger bus in Bacolod City ran over Juana Sonza
Vda. de Darrocha (a USVA pensioner) who died instantly.

Prosecuted for homicide thru reckless imprudence, Dalmacio was convicted by the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental, sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay the
herein petitioner P15,000.00 for the death of the victim, P5,000.00 as moral damages,
P5,000.00 for burial expenses and P10,000.00 for loss of pension which the deceased had
failed to receive.

On appeal, the former Court of Appeals modified the CFI decision by absolving Dalmacio
from the payment of the P10,000.00 for loss of pension and credited him for the amount of
P5,000.00 previously paid to the herein petitioner under a vehicular insurance policy
obtained by the bus owner.

Issue:

Whether or not damages for loss of pension as ordered by CA is justifiable.

Held:

The deletion of the P10,000.00 awarded for loss of pension is unjustified. Under Article 2206
of the Civil Code

The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be

at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:

(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased, and the indemnity shag be paid to the heirs of the latter. . .

The pension of the decedent being a sure income that was cut short by her death for which
Dalmacio was responsible, the surviving heir of the former is entitled to the award of P
10,000.00 which is just equivalent to the pension the decedent would have received for one
year if she did not die.

On the other hand, the P5,000.00 paid to the herein petitioner by the insurer of the
passenger bus which figured in the accident may be deemed to have come from the bus
owner who procured the insurance. Since the civil liability (ex-delicto) of the latter for the
death caused by his driver is subsidiary and, at bottom, arises from the same culpa, the
insurance proceeds should be credited in favor of the errant driver.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted partially in that the P10,000.00 award for loss
of pension deleted in the appealed Court of Appeals decision is hereby reinstated. Costs
against private respondent.

47. MMTC vs. CA

Facts:

Musa was the driver of MMTC bus no. 27 (MMTC an operator of a passenger busses within
the Metro Manila area). The spouses Rosales were parents of Liza Rosalie who was hit by
Musa, when crossing Katipunan Avenue in Quezon City. A witness said that that Liza was
already near the center of the street when the bus hit her. Musa is found guilty of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and sentenced imprisonment to maximum penalty by the
Regional Trial Court. The spouses Rosales filed an independent civil action for damages
against MMTC, Musa, MMTC Acting General Manager Conrado Tolentino, and the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City found MMTC and Musa guilty of negligence and ordered them to pay damages and
attorneys fees. The parties appealed both to the Court of Appeals.

The court affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification of deleting the Actual
damages and awarding in lieu thereof the death indemnity. The spouses filed a motion for
reconsideration in a resolution topartly granted by increasing the indemnity for the death of
Liza Rosalie. Musa and MMTC assailed the decision of Court of Appeals.

The spouses Rosales contended that the death indemnity set at Actual damages, increasing
the amount of damages awarded, and to hold all the defendants-respondents solidarily
liable. The conclusions of the Court of Appeals affirm the trial court bars a reversal of the
finding of liability against petitioners MMTC and Musa, that such findings are whimsical,
capricious, and arbitrary can they be overturned. To the contrary both the Court of Appeals
and Regional Trial Court are anchored on the evidence submitted by the parties.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the employers are held liable for the damages caused by their
employees (art. 2180 of Civil Code)

(2) Whether or not the question of damages are subject of the appeal

(3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in absolving the GSIS liability
Held:

(1) The Supreme Court cannot consider the same as sufficiently persuasive proof that there
was observance of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees, they fail to
submit any other evidence which might obviate the nature of the testimony. MMTC
is primarily liable for damages for the negligence of its employee in view of Art. 2180.
Pursuant to Art. 2181 it can recover from its employee what it may pay; the spouses have
the option of enforcing the judgment against either MMTC or Musa. The court held that the
responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi delict is solidary, in view
of Art. 2194.

(2) The court held the question of damages. (1) As to the indemnity for Death, it is fixed at
P50,000 to conform the Court of Appeals increased the indemnity. (2) Actual Damages,
based on Article 2199 that one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by as duly proved. The spouses Rosales only submitted receipts
showing that the expenses were only P60, 226.65. Hence the spouses Rosales are entitled
to recover only theP60, 226.65. (3) Moral Damages under Art. 2206 the ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of
the deceased. The spouses Rosales presented evidence of the intense moral suffering they
had gone through as a result of the loss of Liza Rosalie who was their youngest child;
(People v Teehankee) the Court awardedP1 million as moral damages for the loss of a
minor child. Hence the Court holds that the MMTCand Musa are solidarily liable to the
spouses Rosales in the amount of P1 million as Moral damages for the death of Liza
Rosalie. (4) Exemplary damages. It is recovered upon the case involving quasi-delicts if the
defendants acted with gross negligence, the records indicate that there was a pending
criminal case against Musa with another branch of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City for
reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries; it also shows that he failed to stop
his vehicle at once after the eye witnesses shouted at him. Under the circumstances the
Court deemed it reasonable to award the spouses Rosales Exemplary damages in the
amount of P5000, 000. (5) Attorneys Fees. In pursuant of Article 2208,attorneys fees may
be recovered when, exemplary damages are awarded. We held an award of attorneys fees
to be reasonable (Sulpicio Lines V Court of Appeals) the death of a minor child in the
sinking of the vessel. (6) Compensation for Loss of Earning Capacity. The compensation
of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to earn money.
(People v Teehankee) compensation should be allowed for loss of earning capacity resulting
from the death of a minor. Evidence shows that Liza Rosalie was a good student, promising
artist, and obedient child. The total net earning capacity (life expectancy is equivalent to
2/3 multiply by the difference of eighty (80) and the age of the deceased) amounts to P321,
870.12.

(3) With respect to the GSIS, they contended that it was the insurer in a contract for third
party liability it had with the MMTC. In Article 2180 (4) mentions managers this term is
used in the sense of employers. Thus, Tolentino and Celebrado cannot be held for the tort
of Pedro Musa. The GSIS admitted in its answer that it was the insurer of the MMTC for the
third party liability with respect to MMTC Bus no. 27 to the extent of P 50,000. Hence the
spouses have the option to claim the said amount from the GSIS.

48. GR No. 176946: November 15, 2010

CONSTANCIA G. TAMAYO, JOCELYN G. TAMAYO, and ARAMIS G. TAMAYO,

collectively known as HEIRS OF CIRILO TAMAYO, Petitioners, v. ROSALIA ABAD
SERA, ROAN ABAD SERA, and JANETE ABAD SERA, Respondents Nachura, J.:

FACTS:

Antonieto Senora, 43 years old and police chief inspector of the PNP was riding along Sucat
in his motorcycle, when he was bumped by a tricycle from behind. This led to the
motorcycle being pushed under an oncoming Isuzu Elf Van driven by Polloso which
immediately resulted to the death of Senora. Cirilo, the owner of the sole proprietorship
which employed Polloso put up the defense of using the diligence of a good father of a
family when employing his employees. When a case was filed in the RTC, it ruled in favour
of Senora, which it ordered to pay the latter the amounts ofP105,100.00 for actual
damages,P50,000.00 for loss of life,P1,152,360.00 for loss of earnings andP30,000.00 for
attorneys fees. It reasoned that even without the simple negligence of the tricycle, Polloso
could have avoided the accident by slowing down or stopping.

Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, but it adjusted the value to P1.8 Million.

Petitioner then appeals to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in declaring Polloso to be negligent.

2. Whether Cirilo is solidarily liable

HELD:

No. It has not been sufficiently established that Polloso and Cirilo is liable..

Civil Law: Negligence

1st Issue:

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that findings of fact of trial courts are entitled to
great weight and should not be disturbed, except for strong and valid reasons, because the
trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of witnesses while testifying. It is
not a function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence all over again.The factual
findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are final and conclusive. There is no
reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts.

2 ndIssue:

The RTC correctly disregarded the testimonies of Cirilos wife and his employee, leaving no
other evidence to support the claim that he had exercised the degree of diligence required
in hiring and supervising his employees. The CA also correctly applied the formula in
computing the damages awarded, which is:

Net Earning Capacity = life expectancy x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary
living expenses)

Petition DENIED. The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED

49. Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Lee , G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010
50. G.R. No. 148974 : July 2, 2010OMC CARRIERS, INC and JERRY AALUCAS
y PITALINO,

Petitioners,
vs. SPOUSES ROBERTO C. NABUA and ROSARIO T. NABUA,
Respondents.

FACTS:
On August 4, 1995, at about 3:00 pm, an Isuzu private tanker with plate no. PCH 612, owned by and
registered in the name of petitioner OMC Carriers, Inc. and then being driven by its employee Jerry
P.Aalucas, was cruising along Quirino Highway towards the general direction of Largo, Quezon City. At
Barangay Pasong Putik, Novaliches, Quezon City, the aforesaid private tanker hit a private vehicle, an Isuzu
Gemini with plate no. NDF 372, which was making a left turn towards a nearby Caltex Gasoline station. The
impact heavily damaged the right side portion of the latter motor and mortally injured its18-year-old driver,
Reggie T. Nabua, who was later pronounced dead on arrival at the Fairview Polymedic Hospital.
Respondent spouses Berlino and Rosario Nabua, the parents of the victim, filed a Complaint for damages
against petitioners and the General Manager of OMC Carriers, Chito Calauag, before the RTC of Quezon
City, Branch 224. On January 19, 1998, the RTC rendered a decision of which was in favor of the plaintiffs.
The petitioners then appealed the RTC Decision to the CA. On December 28, 1999, the CA rendered a
decision which affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications.

ISSUES: (1)
WON the OMC Carriers, Inc demonstrated the diligence of good father of a family.
(2)
WON the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the RTCs award of 60,000.00 as death indemnity and
100,000.00 as moral damages. In addition that the award of attorneys fees was without legal basis.

RULING:(1)

No. the defendant company failed to produce n court any record or other documentary proof tending to
establish that it had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in theselection and supervision of
its drivers and buses, notwithstanding the calls therefore by boththe trial court and the opposing counsel,
argues strongly against its pretensions.

(2)

Death indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at 50,000.00. Hence, the amount awarded by the RTC
and the CA must be reduced accordingly. On the issue of moral damages, prevailing jurisprudence fixes
moral damages of
50,000.00 for death. The rule on the awardof attorneys fees is that there must be a justification for the
same. On this note, after reading through the text of the CA decision, this Court finds that the same is bereft
of any findings of fact and law to justify the award of attorneys fees.